 Is Israel's right-wing government accelerating the annexation of Palestine? What do its latest policies on settlements show? The poor are being bankrupted as rich nations spend billions for private healthcare. What does Oxfam New Report expose about the role of development finance institutions? Mali voted for a revamped constitution in its recent referendum. It backs a unitary state with checks on the president's powers, but will differences with the UN mission over tackling an Islamist insurgency and other issues persist? We look at all these questions and more in daily debrief. The three-fold increase in Israeli settlements in Palestine over six months has sparked fierce resistance among Palestinians, but also misgivings among its avid supporters. While reports indicate that there may be differences between the military security establishment and the far-right elements, that seems to be no bar to the occupation's policies. Let's ask Abdul from People's Dispatch to explain what these mean. Abdul, what really explains the Israeli state's approach towards sending people into Palestinian territories, occupying lands, building homes over there? And then later on we see these statements which occasionally condemn what's going on. What explains this? Well, it seems like as a part of the larger project of basically which Israel has, it is a well-known fact that Israel has a policy of kind of creating facts on the ground in the occupied territories which ultimately will lead to some kind of denial of Palestinian statehood. And for that particular, with this strategy, which has a strategic motive, of course, and has a religious sanction also. When we talk about strategic, of course, you see that Israel always wanted to control the Jordan River, the source of water. And even ever since the occupation, they have basically pursued a systematic approach of building settlements. Today there are around 700,000 illegal settlers living in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem. And that basically is a part of that larger project which we were just referring to, to basically create facts on the ground, to control the water sources, to control the international border with Jordan somehow. And along with that, of course, the rise of the right wing, ultra-right wing religious fanatics inside the Israeli political system has also basically strengthened in this particular approach. What is called the violent plan, which was initially conceived in 1967-68, basically is unfolding on the ground. So, occasional condemnation by US and other international parties only makes any difference. And it seems, whenever they occasionally issue such statements like this illegal process is not acceptable and so on and so forth, basically they take it as some kind of spontaneous ad hoc policy of settlement expansion, which it is not. It is a systematic approach. It has, as I said before, it has both strategic and religious agenda behind it. When we talk about religious agenda, it basically means that the religious right wing believes, that is the ideological belief, that there is no West Bank, it is Judea and Samaria, part of the Holy Land, which was promised to the Jews. And the Palestinians living there do not have legitimate right to be there. So, all this together basically explains, if we go into the details of it, explains the Israel's policy of settlement expansion in the occupied territories. Abdul, let's talk now about the timing. Why is it heating up so much now and there's a lot of international condemnation also, which we are seeing building up? Well, there is a complex web of reasons, basically, a set of reasons basically explains the recent upsurge in the settlement activities, in the settler violence, in the occupied territories. As you rightly pointed out, of course, there are authorities which are responsible for providing security, quote unquote, to the illegal settlers inside the occupied territories and they have their own mechanism of dealing with the Israeli state. So, that is one part, of course. But the major part is the Israeli establishment, the current Israeli government is basically dominated by the settler, the leaders from the settler movement, whether it is a small church who has been, who has a record of leading settler movement, fanatic settler movement inside the occupied territories, whether it is Ben Guir, who has led settlers on and off and kind of have also claimed some kind of authority over the Palestinian religious institutions like Al-Aqsa or the defense minister in Israel, all of them, the prominent leadership basically comes from the settler movement. And since they are in the government which is considered to be the most right-wing government in the history of Israel, they think that this is the time for them to kind of expand the settlements as much as possible and push their larger agenda of a kind of greater Israel. So, denying the Palestinians completely any hope of a separate state in the future. So, given that fact that they are politically dominant in the Israeli power system, political system at the moment, they think this is the right time to push forward. And so, settler violence, increased settler violence should also be seen in that particular context. They basically are trying to create fear among the common Palestinians in the occupied territories so that the resistance is minimized and a fear is created so that more and more Palestinian territories are available for taking and building of illegal settlements there. Alright, Abdul, thanks a lot for joining us. Hospitals turn into prisons in the world's poorest countries as private hospitals refuse to let patients leave without paying their hefty bills. Even the dead are not spared. The decades-old idea that the private sector can participate in healthcare is smashed in a new Oxfam report aptly titled Sick Development. Anav Raka from the People's Health Movement joins us now to explain the most important findings and how they relate to issues that activists and patients have raised for many years. Anna, thanks for joining us. An important report, it seems, from Oxfam. Now, every country would say that it's a priority to provide healthcare, affordable healthcare, universally accessible healthcare, but that's not really the picture that this report is painting, is it? Yeah, I think that what we can say it's exactly the opposite in some way. Although the report does focus on, you know, how high-income countries and more specifically the institutions that they use for international development, investment, so, you know, like development banks and development loans or aid loans, how they actually manage or maybe it's better to say don't manage to fulfill the aid set in healthcare on the global level. So, you know, generally when we look at how these countries talk about health in the international sphere, they're very dedicated to sustainable development goals, so, you know, the governments are all about providing equitable healthcare all around the world, improving access to healthcare, reducing the cost for which patients have to pay for at the location where they receive the care and so on and so on. But what the report shows is that these countries who are very vocal about the good that they're doing in the world are actually very poorly informed about how their investments are used, who they benefit mostly and what essentially what the results are. The report looks at the development finance institutions from four European countries, so Germany, France, the UK and then the European Union, but they also look at the World Bank. And interestingly what the report shows is that so in the period between 2010 and 2022, there were over 350 investments made in private health companies overall, so 67 investments of those, they amounted to 2.2 billion US dollars, so those were direct investments into healthcare. Even more, of course, if we look at how indirect investments were made, there were 206 of those which were made through intermediaries, so the presumption is that it would be a bit more difficult to follow how the money went to the healthcare system in receiving countries, but it should be doable. These kind of investments amounted to 3.2 billion dollars, but of course it's not quite clearly defined how much of it specifically went to healthcare. And so, as I said, what the report shows is that these investment companies, finance institutions in Europe and the World Bank, essentially they're not really sure, they don't have an overall picture, for example. The report quotes several examples where the researchers reached out to these institutions asking them about a particular investment, they say, oh, but we don't know about this, are you sure this is our investment? So there should be a lot to say about the accountability of the institutions to the people who they collect money from and to the people who they are responsible for building better health systems. So basically what the report shows is that it's a very problematic field. In addition to the uncertainties that I just talked about, there's also a history of channeling these investments through intermediaries, which are located in tax havens, so there's another layer of accountability issues being added here. And unsurprisingly, the report shows that this kind of development and yes, essentially this kind of development area should be changed quite drastically if the world wants to actually see the results that it's supposed to achieve. Right now, and I mentioned earlier that there are countries where people are kept trapped in the hospitals until they pay the bills. And this is happening, I think, in African countries, in two African countries in particular. Can you just go into some of the details of what Oxfam has said? Yeah, so essentially there were two reports published at the same time. There is one report looking a bit more closely into cases in India, which is a topic on its own. But this report focuses also on different African countries, which were recipients of such investment and where private health institutions, private hospitals have benefited from the money while the report shows they haven't actually done much to improve access to healthcare for people. One of the examples is definitely Kenya, that's the example that you quoted in the introduction. So in the Nairobi women's hospital, which is not just a women's hospital, it's a chain of hospitals which provide overall healthcare. But there's a disturbing track record that the report shows where patients have been kept essentially imprisoned in hospital if they haven't been able to pay the bills for the healthcare they received. So this includes women who have just given birth. So either the children were kept in hospital and the women were forced to leave the hospital and then to go back and forth to breast feed the children every day. And the children were kept there until the bills were paid or until the case reached the media and then it was resolved through that. It also impacted school children. So it's a very, very vulnerable population that we're talking about here. It's hitting hardest at the people who need healthcare the most. So those are the people who really need to have access to good quality healthcare at any time. And I think that there's one more thing that maybe we can highlight here. It's not in Kenya. I think the report talks about Nigeria when it talks about this. So it's essentially going against the argument about reducing the expenditure of healthcare, of direct costs incurred by patients. This is one of the top aims that governments are talking about. We should stop catastrophic health expenditure. But the report shows that all these aims which should be going into that direction are actually nowhere near that. And if we look at pregnant women in Nigeria, so it can cost several years of income for the poorest women in Kenya to give simple childbirth. So they're admitted to hospital if the childbirth process goes according to plan without any complications. For the bottom 50% of the population, it will cost them about nine months worth of income. Of course, if there are complications, if you need a C-section, if you need anything else, the cost rises. So it's not only Nigeria, of course, if you look at what the report shows as an average in the health institutions which benefit from this kind of investment. If you are in the bottom 10% of the population overall, it will cost you about 16 years worth of income if you give birth through a C-section. 16 years. So it's not even serious. We cannot talk about stopping catastrophic health expenditure if women are expected to give so much money to give birth. Right, Anna. Basically, what the report is showing us is that there is no room for funding private health care. There is no alternative really to public funded health care, which is universal and provides people with everything from basic care to the highest level of care. Absolutely. Also, there were attempts to go into primary health care by private companies, but this fortunately has been very reduced and it has been reacted by from the WHO and essentially, yes, what you're saying, it's very true. There's no alternative to universal public health care. Thanks, Anna. Thanks for joining us with that absolutely shocking details of that report. Mali's new constitution paves the way for elections in 2024. It's widely seen as a step in the right direction as people overwhelmingly backed it. Mali's battling corruption and an Islamist insurgency and it confronts the after effects of coups that led to French forces leaving last year and Colonel Assime Goethe consolidating his power. Prashant from People's Dispatch joins us now in the studio with more. Prashant, now the new constitution makes a lot of changes, seems to be that Bamako is shifting away from its past in a big way. What are the important changes that the constitution presents? Right. I think so two or three aspects to highlight. One, of course, is the fact that there are substantial changes in the core institutional structure of the Malian state, let's call it that way, in terms of how the presidency, the parliament, all these institutions are in besides this considerable change in that. So there has been, in fact, some criticism that there is a lot of concentration of power in the president. But actually, if you look at the details, what it shows is that a lot of those details were in the earlier version of the constitution as well. So it's not that a lot of fresh powers have been introduced. The prime minister has been made more accountable to the president, but there's a new house of parliament that has been brought into the Senate. And this is an interesting move because earlier there was no real certainty of Mali's also diverse country. There was no real certainty over whether it was a unitary state or a federal state. Now the constitution has taken a very clear standard. It is a unitary state. And then based on that, what we have also seen is that to accommodate the diversity in the country, they've also set up a Senate. So now the Senate is also involved in the various procedures and stuff. And there's also, they've also brought in a provision for impeachment of the president in extreme circumstances. So that kind of balances out to some extent the role of the powers of the president, as they say. But this is one key aspect of it. And then there are also, for instance, the question of considering that there's been a huge anti-imperialist wave in Mali. Mali is one of the countries in Western Africa, which has seen a very profound and substantial movement against France and French forces who were ostensibly there to fight terrorism, but actually did not succeed and had become very unpopular. So Mali saw a very profound movement against them. And we need to understand the military coup that took place in Mali in the context of this movement. So usually when we say military coup, we think of evil and greedy military generals who kind of capture power. But I think the cases, the countries in Western Africa are a bit different because the armed forces or the officers who came to power seem to have been riding on what was a wave of strong anger against their governments. And the main reason people were angry against their existing governments was the fact that these governments were one, very hand in glove with the French. And two, the fact that the French had actually failed to address the issue of terrorism and Islamic extremism for that matter. So this constitutional referendum was conducted by a transitional military council. And it kind of sets the structure for that. And keeping this in mind, that is, for instance, French has been demoted in terms of a working language. And the Marian languages have been given priority. There have been some of those gestures towards the anti-French sentiment as well. But overall, what we are seeing is that there is an attempt to, I think, re-envision the republic. So there is this call for a fourth republic. And that is based, that has been the key point for this referendum. And also, I think it's important to note that this will next year elections are scheduled to be held based on this constitution. A new president will be elected. And then they will be moved away from the transition military council. So that's the overall context. And of course, secularism has been reiterated, which was opposed by some sections. Some new accountability measures have been imposed in terms of key office holders declaring, having to declare their wealth. So some interesting measures here and there as well regarding some of those steps. But I think the key test of this constitution will be, of course, next year when the elections take place. But also equally important, the fact that it also depends on how the fight against the extremism and separatist insurgencies that are taking place, that also proceeds. Because irrespective of whether the fact that the constitution is good or not, irrespective of what the intentions of its rulers are, if they're not able to deliver on those fronts, it becomes a bit of a problem. So that's definitely an issue. Prashant, now looking at some of the recent challenges that Mali has faced, how do you think it will pan out in the future? Right, very tough to say Mali is actually very delicately poised right now because like I said on the one hand, there are these insurgencies which actually even affected the voting in some regions. In fact, I believe voting did not take place in one region. Because of that, our colleague Pawan has a story, of course, that details all of this, did not take place in one region because of that. And it's a constant battle that's going on. Wagner forces, I believe have been involved as instructors. That's what they call themselves in some of these regions as well. There is a dispute also with the United Nations. The United Nations had said that they did back this referendum, they were very supportive of it. But there's been a conflict with the UN on the UN peacekeeping forces that are the 15,000-dollar soldiers who were there. They have been allegations against the Mali army in terms of human rights violations. Mali has strongly denied it. Mali has also said that they are not happy with how the UN mission is performing. And in fact, its mandate is set to end at the end of the month, whether it be renewed or not is a big question. So that definitely is a very key issue remains to be addressed. But I think fundamentally, like I said, the large question is basically about this. Will the government be able to regain some of the ground that has been lost to these separatist groups and insurgencies? Will it be able to convey to the people that it is able, it has a strong social program. In fact, incidentally, I think the new constitution also assures access to water as one of the key I believe points, which is a very interesting thing. I think basic amenities, calling that a fundamental right is a very interesting aspect as well. But again, it's all words until it is implemented. The other interesting thing, of course, is that the region as a whole is seeing a chance. So there has been, for instance, greater collaboration between countries like Mali, Burkina Faso. There have been a lot of discussions between these governments. And that reflects, I think, a tendency which is often not talked about too much now, which is of Pan-Africanism itself. And generally, among the people too, there is a large sentiment of an understanding that the borders that were established were basically the creation of Western colonial powers. And many of these borders are pretty nonsensical in some ways. So the dream of progressives across Africa has always been for a more Pan-Africanist perspective where countries can collaborate maybe even federate at some point and try to address some of their challenges together. And this is all the more relevant at a time when you have organizations like the IMF or World Bank who impose conditions. Countries are finding it difficult to address the sovereignty question. How do you deal with, as one individual country, are you able to deal with the kind of conditions that are imposed? So does further integration and collaboration make sense? I think a question countries across the world are dealing with. And in Africa, it is also animated by the sense of Pan-Africanism that is there. So I think the challenge for the rulers of Malia on one hand on the security front, definitely a tough question. But on the other hand, I think also looking at how some of these economic and social challenges can also be addressed and also an ideological whether that will be possible. There are organizations working on this front. We have, for instance, the West African People's Organization recently founded which is sort of pushing some of these agenda as well. So altogether, I think these are some of the key questions and challenges before Mali right now. Right. Thanks a lot for joining us Prashant. And that's all we have for today. Thanks very much for watching Daily Debrief. We'll see you again on Thursday. Until then, you can find more of our work on our website, peoplesdispatch.org, our social media accounts on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram. And our YouTube channel have more updates and this show Daily Debrief. Thanks again for watching.